dismissed EB-2 NIW Case: Financial Mathematics

identifying data deleted m 
4 prevent c!carly unwarranted 
invasion of personal privacy 
U.S. Department of Homeland Security 
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services 
Office of Administrative Appeals MS 2090 
Washington, DC 20529-2090 
-. ~ 
U. S. Citizenship 
and Immigration 
Office: TEXAS SERVICE CENTER Date: 
SRC 07 278 55861 
 JUL 0 1 2009 
PETITION: 
 Immigrant Petition for Alien Worker as a Member of the Professions Holding an Advanced 
Degree or an Alien of Exceptional Ability Pursuant to Section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration 
and Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 5 1 153(b)(2) 
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER: 
SELF-REPRESENTED 
This is the decision of the Administrative Appeals Office in your case. All documents have been returned to 
the office that originally decided your case. Any further inquiry must be made to that office. 
If you believe the law was inappropriately applied or you have additional information that you wish to have 
considered, you may file a motion to reconsider or a motion to reopen. Please refer to 8 C.F.R. tj 103.5 for 
the specific requirements. All motions must be submitted to the office that originally decided your case by 
filing a Form I-290B, Notice of Appeal or Motion, with a fee of $585. Any motion must be filed within 30 
days of the decision that the motion seeks to reconsider or reopen, as required by 8 C.F.R. 5 103.5(a)(l)(i). 
Jo v F. Grissom 
Acting Chief, Administrative Appeals Office 
Page 2 
DISCUSSION: 
 The Director, Texas Service Center, denied the employment-based immigrant visa 
petition. The matter is now before the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO) on appeal. The AAO will 
dismiss the appeal. 
The petitioner seeks classification pursuant to section 203(b)(2) of the Immigration and Nationality Act 
(the Act), 8 U.S.C. 5 1153(b)(2), as a member of the professions holding an advanced degree. At the 
time he filed the petition, the petitioner was a model implementation credit risk analyst with UBS 
Investment Bank, Stamford, ~onnecticut.' The petitioner asserts that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer, and thus of a labor certification, is in the national interest of the United 
States. The director found that the petitioner qualifies for classification as a member of the professions 
holding an advanced degree, but that the petitioner has not established that an exemption from the 
requirement of a job offer would be in the national interest of the United States. 
On appeal, the petitioner submits new exhibits and asserts that the director failed to take the nature of 
mathematical research into account. 
Section 203(b) of the Act states, in pertinent part: 
(2) Aliens Who Are Members of the Professions Holding Advanced Degrees or Aliens of 
Exceptional Ability. -- 
(A) In General. -- Visas shall be made available . . . to qualified immigrants who are 
members of the professions holding advanced degrees or their equivalent or who 
because of their exceptional ability in the sciences, arts, or business, will substantially 
benefit prospectively the national economy, cultural or educational interests, or welfare 
of the United States, and whose services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business 
are sought by an employer in the United States. 
(B) Waiver of Job Offer. 
(i) . . . the Attorney General may, when the Attorney General deems it to be in 
the national interest, waive the requirements of subparagraph (A) that an alien's 
services in the sciences, arts, professions, or business be sought by an employer 
in the United States. 
The director did not dispute that the petitioner qualifies as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree. The sole issue in contention is whether the petitioner has established that a waiver of 
the job offer requirement, and thus a labor certification, is in the national interest. 
1 
 In April 2009, MetLife Group, Inc., filed a Form 1-129 petition (receipt number EAC 09 133 5 1241) seeking to classify 
him as an H-1B nonimmigrant. That petition has been approved (conferring status valid from October 1, 2009 to 
September 22,2012), and there is no record of any other employer filing a superseding petition. 
Neither the statute nor the pertinent regulations define the term "national interest." Additionally, 
Congress did not provide a specific definition of "in the national interest." The Committee on the 
Judiciary merely noted in its report to the Senate that the committee had "focused on national interest by 
increasing the number and proportion of visas for immigrants who would benefit the United States 
economically and otherwise. . . ." S. Rep. No. 55, 10 1 st Cong., 1 st Sess., 1 1 (1 989). 
Supplementary information to regulations implementing the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), 
published at 56 Fed. Reg. 60897,60900 (November 29, 1991), states: 
The Service [now U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services] believes it appropriate 
to leave the application of this test as flexible as possible, although clearly an alien 
seeking to meet the [national interest] standard must make a showing significantly 
above that necessary to prove the "prospective national benefit" [required of aliens 
seeking to qualify as "exceptional."] The burden will rest with the alien to establish 
that exemption from, or waiver of, the job offer will be in the national interest. Each 
case is to be judged on its own merits. 
Matter of New York State Dept. of Transportation, 22 I&N Dec. 2 15 (Cornmr. 1998), has set forth 
several factors which must be considered when evaluating a request for a national interest waiver. First, 
it must be shown that the alien seeks employment in an area of substantial intrinsic merit. Next, it must 
be shown that the proposed benefit will be national in scope. Finally, the petitioner seeking the waiver 
must establish that the alien will serve the national interest to a substantially greater degree than would 
an available U.S. worker having the same minimum qualifications. 
It must be noted that, while the national interest waiver hinges on prospective national benefit, it clearly 
must be established that the alien's past record justifies projections of future benefit to the national 
interest. The petitioner's subjective assurance that the alien will, in the future, serve the national interest 
cannot suffice to establish prospective national benefit. The inclusion of the term "prospective" is used 
here to require future contributions by the alien, rather than to facilitate the entry of an alien with no 
demonstrable prior achievements, and whose benefit to the national interest would thus be entirely 
speculative. 
We also note that the regulation at 8 C.F.R. tj 204.5(k)(2) defines "exceptional ability" as "a degree 
of expertise significantly above that ordinarily encountered" in a given area of endeavor. By statute, 
aliens of exceptional ability are generally subject to the job offerllabor certification requirement; 
they are not exempt by virtue of their exceptional ability. Therefore, whether a given alien seeks 
classification as an alien of exceptional ability, or as a member of the professions holding an 
advanced degree, that alien cannot qualify for a waiver just by demonstrating a degree of expertise 
significantly above that ordinarily encountered in his or her field of expertise. 
The petitioner filed the petition on July 30, 2007. In a statement accompanying his initial filing, the 
petitioner described his work: 
[Tlhe stock market is risky. Stock prices fluctuate widely. . . . [Ylou can reduce the 
impact caused by [a] bear market to a minimum level by introduction [ofl risk control 
procedures during investment in [the] stock market. 
. . . Nowadays, more than[] 70% people in [the] financial industry use [the] Geometric 
Brownian motion approach in modeling stock prices. 
No doubt that using Geometric Brownian motion is a big step for people to model the 
stock price but it has its own fundamental shortcoming. That is, it is not able to describe 
the jumps or sudden moves in stock prices which happen[] frequently in [the] stock 
market. . . . So it is urgent for people to come up with a new model to understand the 
stock prices moves in some significant events. 
After people saw the shortcoming of the widely used Geometric Brownian motion 
model, Cox and Ross proposed in 1975 that stock prices actually follow a jump process 
for [the] short-term. . . . This is a more intuitive view of stock markets, which allows 
larger moves in stock prices caused by sudden world events. . . . It is extremely 
important to model stock prices movement well in order to better manage the risks 
investors will have due to unexpected stock prices movement. . . . 
The important result I obtained would make the modeling of stock price using stable 
processes possible. . . . After my work, people now know exactly the distribution of 
jumps of stable processes, not just estimate it as people did before. . . . 
My research results have been highly appraised by the scientific community. . . . 
My research results and experience are also recognized in [the] financial industry. . . . I 
was hired by UBS as an Associate Director in investment risk analysis, which is a high 
level senior position, although I didn't have any working experience in [a] financial 
company. I will be in control of the risk exposure. I will make sure that we have 
enough capital reserve to meet regulatory requirement[s] and to hedge our risk before 
we run into some trades if extreme events do happen[] in the near future. The better I 
can control our risk from more accurately modeling prices point of view, the less risks 
t[e]ns of thousands of UBS individual investors will face. . . . 
As the leading expert in theory and modeling of jump processes in the world, I think I 
can and I have the responsibility to move the rolls going further to help more people to 
understand jump processes and modeling stock prices using jump processes. 
I plan to develop several financial models using jump processes according to today's 
market. The model itself is not about making money, but to help people[] understand 
the market in some rare events and thus reduce the risk of people being exposed to [sic]. 
(Petitioner's emphasis.) Several letters accompanied the petitioner's initial submission. All of the 
witnesses have either worked or studied at the university of Connecticut, where the petitioner earned 
his graduate degrees. tad: 
I was [the petitioner's] PhD advisor from 2003 to 2006. [The petitioner] is one of the 
best students I have had. . . . He has made significant contributions to probability theory, 
much more than is typically done by a graduate student. 
. . . [The petitioner's] research concerns proving uniqueness and existence for pure jump 
processes in higher dimensions. . . . [The petitioner] derived explicit formulas for the 
transition densities of symmetric stable processes, the archetype for pure jump 
processes. 
His results not only have an impact in pure research, but also allow[] practitioners in the 
financial industry to simulate stock prices and incorporate uncertainty into models using 
jump processes. It also helps investment traders to fairly price equity options when there 
exist jumps in the stock prices. The importance of equity options to the United States 
economy cannot be overstated. 
[The petitioner] has the capability to be a world-class mathematician. Although he has 
chosen to work in the financial industry, I am glad that he can utilize what he has 
learned for practical purposes. He has the potential to make a solid impact to the 
national interest of the United States. 
[The petitioner] is the best student I have ever met at the University of Connecticut. At 
such a young age as a graduate student, he has already made a breakthrough 
achievement in probability theory, that is the proof of the uniqueness and existence of 
pure jump processes in high dimensions.  his problem has been han ing out there for 
more than a decade since the proof for one dimension case by in 1988. Prof. 
h 
previous result was considered one of the foundations for modem probability 
t eory. I can envision that [the petitioner's] result will also be one of the classical 
foundations for future development in probability theory. 
Furthermore, [the petitioner] has made fundamental contributions by being the first 
researcher to derive the explicit formula for transition densities for stable processes, one 
of the most important fundamental jump processes. These two results already qualify 
[the petitioner] as the leading expert in the field of pure jump processes theory. 
. . . [Hlis results allow to simulate [sic] the abrupt changes of stock prices in the financial 
markets, which is related to his work in the UBS investment bank. His results also allow 
to derive [sic] the pricing formula for equity options when there are jumps in the stock 
Page 6 
prices. His results can be the basis for the purpose of risk management when there are 
jumps in the market[']s behavior. 
[The petitioner] is a leading expert in pure jump processes theory, and he is probably the 
only person in the world that uses the most advanced knowledge about jump process to 
model the stock market. 
, now Assistant Vice President at Tradeweb LLC, stated: 
I knew [the petitioner] when I was a graduate student in mathematics at [the] University 
of Connecticut. As a classmate, I knew that he [was] the best student in the 
Mathematics Department. 
. . . During his PhD study, [the petitioner] derived the transition densities of stable 
processes, which is a process that can address more complicated jump processes. What 
I am aware of is that he is the first researcher who derived [an] explicit formula on 
transition densities for stable process. This result is the foundation for better modeling 
stock prices using jump process theory. 
He is also the first person who proved the existence and uniqueness of pure jump 
processes of variable order. Both these results will have unprecedented impact on the 
modeling of stock prices and risk management, and will be a milestone for further 
theoretical development in probability theory. 
. . . As far as I know, [the petitioner] is the first person in the world who applies the most 
advanced mathematical theory about pure jump process to model the stock price. I have 
no doubt that his work will have tremendous impact on the investors when they make 
decisions. I am looking forward to his work [being] published so that I can use his 
results to incorporate into our financial analysis tools. 
now a research scientist at Columbia University, was a doctoral student in 
biomedical engineering at the University of Connecticut at the same time that the petitioner studied 
mathematics there. stated: 
During my PhD study [at the] University of Connecticut, when developing new 
algorithm and system [sic] for reconstructing the structural and hctional information of 
a target embedded in a turbid medium, such as a tumor within an organ, we found that 
some effects of the boundary conditions on the reconstructed images need probability 
theory to address the problems. [The petitioner], who is an expert in probability theory, 
has given me much help and guidance in understanding the appropriate probability 
theory. The probability theory about pure jump process can help us to determine 
whether some unexpected effects shown in an image of a tissue suggest bad components 
or not. 
The witnesses quoted above clearly have strong opinions regarding the value of the petitioner's work. 
The petitioner's initial submission, however, offered no indication that anyone outside of the University 
of Connecticut shares this view, as we would expect if the petitioner's work has truly revolutionized 
probability theory and stock market price prediction. 
The petitioner admitted that he "didn't have any working experience in [a] financial company" when 
UBS hired him less than two months before he filed the petition. Therefore, it is not readily clear that 
he had time to accumulate any sort of significant track record in the financial industry at the time he 
filed the petition. 
On October 23, 2008, the director issued a request for evidence, instructing the petitioner to establish 
the impact of his past work in his field. The director specifically requested letters from independent 
witnesses. In response, the petitioner submitted four such letters. 
of the University of Washington, a self-described "colleague and co-author 
of the petitioner's articles and praised their "superb quality." - 
stated: "There is no question in my mind that [the petitioner] is an extremely talented junior 
mathematician." 
I am writing upon [the petitioner's] request but was already quite familiar with his 
research into stochastic rocesses with jumps as [the petitioner] accompanied his thesis 
supervisor, to UBC in 2004-05. During this time I was able to speak 
to-[the petitioner] about his work which is related to my own work on branching 
measure diffusions. It was a pleasure talking to him as he clearly had a good grasp of a 
broad range of issues related to his research. I have no other personal relationship with 
[the petitioner]. 
His research concerns the extension of a fundamental and 40-year old method of Stroock 
and Varadhan to processes with jumps. . . . His results are state of the art. Both the 
results, and . . . the methods, are sure to [be] extremely useful for both theoreticians and 
applied probabilists alike. They also point to a promising career ahead for [the 
petitioner]. He clearly has much more to offer us in probability theory and stochastic 
modelling applications. 
I do not have personal relation [sic] with [the petitioner]. However, I first knew his 
work when he presented his results at [a] meeting . . . at [the] University of New 
Hampshire in November, 2005. I am interested in his work because it has some new 
ideas and techniques in operator theory although its purpose is to solve problems in 
probability theory. 
[The petitioner's] research concerns proving existence and uniqueness of pure jump 
processes. . . . [The petitioner] not only laid down the foundation for further research but 
also surprised people with his novel ideas and skills. His results will have a significant 
impact on the area, dramatically changing researchers' approaches. 
did not sh to what extent the petitioner's work has changed 
 own 
approach to his work. 
 asserted that the petitioner's area of research involves pseudo- 
differential operators, which "are finding a wide variety of new applications in wireless 
communications, medical imaging, and geophysics. These applications affect our lives greatly and 
require new tools and techniques, which will be provided b researchers like" the petitioner. When 
discussing the applications of the petitioner's work - did not mention finance. He referred 
to the petitioner as a "researcher," and did not indicate any awareness that the petitioner is now a 
financial analyst. 
The only witness to mention finance isof the University of Pennsylvania's 
Wharton School, who stated: 
[The petitioner's] proof of the uniqueness and existence [of] a class of pure jump 
processes for high dimensional case [sic] is a ground breaking contribution to 
probability theory that is all the more remarkable for coming after almost twenty years 
of negligible progress after the establishment of the one dimensional case by Bass in 
1988.. . . 
These results can be expected to have a major impact on the research of the jump 
processes that are of importance both in pure mathematics and in mathematical finance 
where jump processes are of increasing importance. [The petitioner's] work extends the 
range of financial models that are already widely used in financial services. His 
contributions also make possible a large class [of] new models that are especially 
relevant during periods of high volatility, such as we have most recently observed. 
The witnesses described the petitioner's work as "promising," and stated that it "will have a significant 
impact." It is far easier to offer vague predictions of future impact than to demonstrate how the 
petitioner's work has already affected either finance in particular, or mathematics in general. 
The petitioner received an electronic mail message dated June 10, 2008, from a German publishing 
house, offering to publish the petitioner's doctoral thesis in book form. The petitioner also 
demonstrated that one of his papers, "The martingale problem for a class of stable-like processes," has 
been downloaded four times. This evidence addresses the availability of the petitioner's work, not its 
impact. Furthermore, the German publisher's inquiry came nearly a year after the filing date, and the 
petitioner did not submit his article for publication until September 2007, several months after the filing 
date. The thesis, article, and other works were published after the filing date but arose from the 
petitioner's earlier graduate work. Therefore, these materials do not show that the petitioner continues 
to engage in mathematical research of the sort that impressecolleagues. 
The petitioner submitted copies of two articles citing his work. The petitioner acknowledged that few 
researchers have cited his published work, but he asserted that this is because articles in his branch of 
mathematics rarely result in heavy citation. This may be so, but there ought to be some objective means 
of demonstrating that the petitioner's work has been especially influential within the field, beyond 
letters attesting to the promise of future impact. 
The director denied the petition on December 4, 2008, stating that the witness statements in the record 
cannot outweigh the lack of objective evidence to establish the impact and influence of the petitioner's 
work. The director noted that the petitioner must establish eligibility as of the filing date, pursuant to 
8 C.F.R. 9 103.2(b)(l), and therefore he cannot simply show that, in the opinion of some experts of his 
own choosing, his work will eventually be highly influential. 
On appeal, the petitioner asserts that his work was cited twice before the filing date, and he repeats the 
assertion that "mathematical papers" are infrequently cited compared to papers in many other aca 
w 
fields. The record indicates that the citing papers (one of which was co-authored by his advisor, 
were drafted before the filing date, but required revision and were not published until after the 
filing date. 
in a new letter, asserts that "mathematics papers usually go through a much longer 
review and proof checking process than other physical science papers," and therefore the petitioner's 
"papers have not existed long enough for many citations to have appeared." This does not force us to 
conclude that the petitioner's work is being heavily cited, and that these citations will eventually appear 
as a matter of course. The burden of proof is on the petitioner to establish that he is eligible for the 
benefit sought; the petitioner cannot avoid this burden by stating that the evidence of eligibility has not 
yet had time to come into existence. If anything, this argument indicates that the petitioner filed the 
petition prematurely. 
By the same token, we cannot be persuaded by the petitioner's observation that "Boolean algebra was 
- 
diveloped in 1854 by ut had no imdact on the material world until it became central to 
computer logic a century later." We must judge the petitioner's work on its demonstrable impact, rather 
than on speculation that its impact may be apparent in retrospect after years or decades. 
Citations are not the only means by which to measure the importance of academic research work. 
Nevertheless, there must exist some objectively verifiable way to distinguish between truly significant 
research from other work in the field. The assertion that the distinction will become clear with time will 
not suffice, and we will not approve a petition now on the expectation that events at some undefined 
future time will justify that approval. 
Furthermore, even if we were to accept all of the petitioner's assertions regarding the importance of his 
doctoral thesis and the articles that arose from his graduate studies, the petitioner is no longer a graduate 
student and he no longer works in an academic setting. The petitioner began working for an investment 
bank shortly before the filing date. The petitioner claims that his research as a graduate student has 
created considerable excitement among mathematicians, but he has not even claimed, let alone 
demonstrated, that his work in the financial industry has attracted similar attention or had similar 
impact. The petitioner has not established the prospective (i.e., future) benefit that will arise from his 
already-completed student work, and the assertion that he was a productive researcher does not compel 
the conclusion that his work in banking will be of important national benefit. 
As is clear fiom a plain reading of the statute, it was not the intent of Congress that every person 
qualified to engage in a profession in the United States should be exempt fiom the requirement of a job 
offer based on national interest. Likewise, it does not appear to have been the intent of Congress to 
grant national interest waivers on the basis of the overall importance of a given profession, rather than 
on the merits of the individual alien. On the basis of the evidence submitted, the petitioner has not 
established that a waiver of the requirement of an approved labor certification will be in the national 
interest of the United States. 
The burden of proof in these proceedings rests solely with the petitioner. Section 291 of the Act, 
8 U.S.C. $ 1361. The petitioner has not sustained that burden. 
This decision is without prejudice to the filing of a new petition by a United States employer 
accompanied by a labor certification issued by the Department of Labor, appropriate supporting 
evidence and fee. 
ORDER: The appeal is dismissed.